Ved Bhnshan and Another vs Harbans Singh and Another

P.D. Sharma, J.—This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal dated the 3rd January, 1963, by which he allowed Rs. 12,900/- as compensation to Harbans Singh applicant under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This amount was made payable by the insurers, the Jupiter General Insurance Co. u/s 96 of the Act.

Harbans Singh applied to the Chairman, Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, u/s 110-A of the Act for the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. He was returning from his office in Model Town, Ambala City, on 1st August, 1961, where he was employed as a Clerk and when he reached near the Church on the Alexandra Road at 2 P.M., he was knocked down by the motor car, No. PNE 8979 as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries all over his body and remained confined in the hospital till the 25th September, 1961. His right leg had to be amputated. The car which was involved in the accident belonged to Ved Bhushan Gupta Respondent No. 1 and was being driven by Kanhiya Lal Respondent No. 2. It was insured with Messrs. Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd., 66, The Mall, Ambala Cantt Respondent No. 3. The applicant was going on a bicycle towards Ambala Cantonment at the time of the accident. He alleged that Kanhiya Lal Respondent was driving the car rashly and in the act of overtaking, the car struck against the hollow of his right knee and the bicycle, as a result of which he fell down on the left side of the road and received serious injuries Ved Bhushan owner was also in the car at the time.

Ved Bhushan and Messrs. Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondents admitted that car No. PNE 8979 met with an accident on 1st August, 1961, but added that the driver was not responsible for it as he was-driving the car at a slow speed. According to them the applicant himself was acting the dare devil on his cycle and collided with the car. They further pleaded that the applicant received a few minor injuries and that in any case the amount claimed by him as compensation was highly excessive. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of car No. PNE 979 or whether it was due to the negligence of the applicant or that of both ?

(2) What is the compensation due, if any, and from whom to whom ?

He held that Kanhiya Lal driver was negligent and was responsible for the accident He allowed to the applicant compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per menses for 19 years which came to Rs. 11,400/- and in addition Rs. 1500/-for the medical expenses and the cost of the artificial leg.

Ved Bhushan and the Jupiter Genera) Insurance Co. Ltd. have in this appeal impugned the correctness and propriety of the award given by the Tribunal in the matter. Harbans Singh and Kanhiya Lal both have been impleaded as Respondents.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants) urged that the Tribunal while holding that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of Kanhiya Lal driver of the car failed to properly - appreciate the evidence produced by the parties. He took me through the statements of the various witnesses and the documents produced by the parties before the Tribunal in extenso. I would like to refer to these in brief here. Malik Chand A W. 2, Moharir Special Police, said that, at about 1.30 P.M. on 1st August, 1961, he was proceeding from his office situated at 70, The Mall, Ambala Cantonment, to his house in Ambala City and when he reached near the Church he noticed the applicant going on his bicycle from the City towards the Cantonment and a car coming at a very fast speed, from behind him. He further said that the driver of the car without blowing the horn in an attempt to overtake the applicant ran into his bicycle from behind as a result of which the applicant fell down from the cycle and the car stopped at a distance of 30 to 40 yards from the spot According to him Bihari Lal and a Christian Padri also saw the occurrence. He went on to explain that the head light of the car got blood-stained and that he informed the police about the incident on the telephone. He admitted that the police examined him a month and a half after the occurrence He gave the width of the road as about 22 feet. He further stated in his cross-examination that there was no other vehicular traffic on the road at the time of the occurrence and that the applicant fell two to three feet away from the pucca portion of the road. F. M. Parshad, Chaplain of Ambala Church A. W. 3 corroborated the testimony of the above witness. He resided in the compound of the Church and was standing at the gate when the accident took place He also deposed that the applicant was going on his bicycle at moderate speed and that there was no other vehicular traffic on the road at the time of the accident. In his cross-examination he said that the road where the accident took place was about 10 yards from the gate where he was standing and that the applicant fell on the katcha part of the road. Harbans Singh A.W. 6 described the occurrence in the same terms as the above two witnesses. He also deposed that as a result of the injuries received by him he became unconscious and regained his consciousness in the Cantonment Board Hospital. He admitted that the Assistant Sub-Inspector took his statement in the Civil Hospital when be was in a semiconscious state. He could not say whether it was read over to him or not before his signatures were obtained. In rebuttal Ved Bhushan, R.W. 1 owner of the car for the first time gave out that a bus was coming from the opposite direction and on the blowing of the horn by his driver the applicant swerved to his left bat when the car passed by his cycle his front wheel struck against the left portion of the car behind the front light. This he explained was due to the swerving of the cyclist all of a sudden towards his right side. He gave the speed of his car as about 20 miles per hour. He was certain that the Padri was not at the spot when he left with the injured to the hospital. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had a contract of the Military Engineering Service at the time of the incident and in that connection had to deal with O.P. Gupta. Kanhiya Lal R.W. 2 corroborated the statement of his employer. He admitted that the Padri and one or two passers-by reached the spot and they assisted him and his party in lifting the injured from the spot and placing him in the car. O.P. Gupta R.W.4 deposed in terms of the statement of R.W. 1. He is garrison engineer in the Military Engineering Service. He admitted that Ved Bhushan was an M.E.S Contractor and known to him. Therefore when Ved Bhushan Gupta said that one Gupta pedestrian saw the occurrence who was not known to him he gave a lie. Balwant Singh R.W. S and Abdul Latif R.W. 6 were also said to have seen the accident Their evidence also is in line with the story put up by the Appellants.

The learned Tribunal after carefully analyzing the statements of the above witnesses observed that the Appellants'' version of the accident was not correct as according to him the coming of the bus from the opposite side was for the first time introduced by the Appellants when their witnesses were being examined before him. The Appellants in their written statement filed before the Tribunal did not mention that a bus was coming from the opposite side and the applicant swerved to the right suddenly and so met with the accident. The statements of the various witnesses cited by the Appellants deserved to be ignored because of the improvement made by them in their description of the accident Further, Ved Bhushan said that the Padri might have reached the spot after he had left. Kanhiya Lal driver R.W. 2 admitted that the Padri had reached the spot before they left with the injured. This contradiction chows that Ved Bhushan Gupta is not a truth-fill witness. Kanhiya Lal''s account of the incident also failed to convince me. If the applicant had suddenly swerved to the right, the front wheel of the cycle would have been badly damaged but as the evidence shows this was not the case. The location of the injury suffered by the claimant indicated that the car hit him from behind and not that the front wheel of the cycle dashed into the car. O.P. Gupta R W. 4 was rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal. He appears to be a friend of Ved Bhushan Gupta R.W. 1. Balwant Singh R.W. 5 and Abdul Latif R.W. 6 both were not examined by the police. They also did not appear as witnesses in the criminal Court It has yet to be explained as to how Ved Bhushan Gupta R W. 1 or Kanhiya Lal R W. 2 knew that they had seen the occurrence. They appeared to be got up witnesses. Telu Ram R.W. 7 is said to have been traveling m the bus which crossed the car at the time of the accident. The bus story is a concoction, so the testimony of this witness hardly deserves any consideration, and more so as he was neither examined by the police nor appeared as a witness before the Magistrate. On the other hand, Malik Chand A W. 2 and P.M. Parshad both are disinterested and respectable witnesses. The presence of F.M. Parshad at the time of or soon after the occurrence has been conceded by Kanhiya Lal driver. The account of the incident as given by them is natural and is supported by facts established beyond doubt on the record. Harbans Singh after the accident fell on the katcha portion of the road which shows that he was cycling on the extreme left. The handle only of his bicycle was twisted If the accident had taken place in the manner suggested by Kanhiya Lal, the front wheel of the cycle would have been badly damaged. The Tribunal was correct in believing the claimant''s witnesses while holding that Kanhiya Lal driver was solely responsible for the accident.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants also urged that the Tribunal had awarded the compensation on arbitrary grounds. The most important piece of evidence in regard to the injuries suffered by Harbans Singh claimant is the statement of Dr. Nirmal Parkash, Civil Surgeon, Ambala, A.W. 5 who examined him soon after the incident. The injuries observed by the doctor on his person are as follows:

Lacerated wound, right knee back with fracture upper end fibula. The wound was going deep in tissues, jeopardizing the blood supply to the leg, thus necessitating amputation at right thigh as the leg got gangrenous ;

Abrasion right ankle, leg and foot at outer parts;

Simple fracture left clavicle ;

Fracture left second rib;

Fractures of third, fourth, fifth and sixth right ribs;

Fracture left acromian.

The injured remained in a serious shocked condition for many days and was discharged from the hospital on 25th September, 1961. His right leg was amputated on 6th August, 1961. Dr Harwant Singh, Medical Inspector of Factories, A.W 1, gave out that Harbans Singh applicant was working as a clerk in his office in the grade of Rs. 60-4-100/5-175 and was getting Rs. 100/- as substantive pay and Rs. 40/-as DA. He also said that Harbans Singh was eligible for appointment as a Wage Inspector or Labour Inspector in the grade of Rs. 200-10-500 which were field jobs and on account of the amputation of his right leg he could never be considered for the same. He certified that Harbans Singh was very efficient and dependable and stood a very good chance for promotion as a Wage or Labour Inspector but now with the loss of his leg his fate was sealed. The date of birth of Harbans Singh applicant is 5th January, 1925. He joined his service on 4th April, 1950. According to the Tribunal he has 19 years more to serve. In the circumstances the Tribunal did not err in allowing Rs 50/- per menses as compensation for these 19 years. Similarly the sum of Rs. 1500/- towards the medical expenses and the price of the artificial leg is just adequate. I see no good reason for interfering in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant which in my estimate is modest.

The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with cost.